I think when you point out that 'everything is perception', what you really mean to say is that 'experience is perception'.

If you indicate that the tree I am touching is only perception, then what you're saying is that the tree does not exist outside of the field of perception of this physical body. Is that really true though? It's quite a narrow perspective if you ask me. After all, how do you know that very tree is not experiencing just like you are? Of course it is. So, if the tree is experiencing, just like you, then how is the tree only perception? The tree is only experienced via human perception, but you're confusing human perception with awareness. Human field of perception is limited of course.

Here's a post from a former poster on this board named Ananda, which makes a lot of sense to me and might bring some clarity to your posts.

Since consciousness is seen to encompass the instruments of knowledge and the objects which are known (ie the 'outside' world), one simply cannot say that anything is outside of consciousness, for if it were, then it could never be knowable. If I say that Jupiter, for example, is outside of my consciousness, then what I am really saying is that Jupiter is outside of my instruments of knowledge ie my senses and my mind. Jupiter is not outside of my consciousness, for if it were, then I could never detect it via my senses and mind- even if I had a very strong telescope. If we posit something as existing outside of consciousness, then it is something that we can never become conscious of- and so the very object in question can never be established as existing. Even things that we have established as non-existent or false, such as santa claus, or faeries, have their non-existence within consciousness, since it is by consciousness that we can say such things as 'it is' and 'it is not'.

Exactly as Ananda indicates here, just because an object is outside of our field of perception, (in this case, Jupiter), does not mean the object is only made of our human perception which is an extremely narrow view of reality. It means an object simply can't be sensed because it is outside of the field of perception for this body/mind which is our 'sensory'.

I like Jed Mckenna's latest book, bountifully titled "Theory of Everything". For me it cleared up the idea that physical existence is an extension of consciousness. There is only consciousness (source, God).

Your pointer is a good one and I had not thought of it in that manner. Thanks.

You say perception becomes reality, but again you're denying the existence of a tree by doing as such by anthropomorphizing human perception. Again, if a tree only exists as perception, then how can a tree be experiencing just like you are? Nothing in the physical plane requires a human sensory to allow it to exist. It's just your belief that thinks so.

Experience is most certainly perception. There's no world outside of our experience for sure....but that's not just human experience. It's all experience. Consider instead that everything is alive and experiencing just like you are. The universe existed well before humans inhabited it.

I don't know what conceptualized entity you're referring to. The ego is a conceptualized entity. However, you are taking it to another extreme by apparently claiming there's no body either. This is a misinterpretation of your own experience if you ask me.

NDErs and Vedanta alike all claim physical reality to be "unreal". However that is only in comparison to a reality which is even more real than this one. And that does not negate the existence of a physical reality either.

What you're proposing is an incredibly narrow and limited perspective on reality in my opinion. You're entitled to your opinions of course.

Enlightened2B wrote:Experience is most certainly perception. There's no world outside of our experience for sure....but that's not just human experience. It's all experience. Consider instead that everything is alive and experiencing just like you are. The universe existed well before humans inhabited it.

I agree. Also, everything is atoms. These atoms are in a constant state of motion, and depending on the speed of these atoms, things appear as a solid, liquid, or gas. Sound is also a vibration and so are thoughts.

So, your body is also made of atoms, the same atoms in everything else, arranged differently and vibrating at different speeds. So, "your" perception is no better or worse then anything else's perception.

dijmart wrote:
I agree. Also, everything is atoms. These atoms are in a constant state of motion, and depending on the speed of these atoms, things appear as a solid, liquid, or gas. Sound is also a vibration and so are thoughts.

So, your body is also made of atoms, the same atoms in everything else, arranged differently and vibrating at different speeds. So, "your" perception is no better or worse then anything else's perception.

Yea, that's a very good point. If all matter including atoms is energy, then physicality is merely energy slowed down to a very, very slow vibration.

So, if everything is energy, then the entire physical universe including solids, liquids and gasses itself is really just one massive experience of the same self aware energy source experiencing through different 'forms/vehicles' of experience. At least that's how I see it and I could be wrong of course. There really is no 'external world' as I see it. There's only that which is external to each physical form. Everything is in relation though to everything else. Our perception of the world via these human bodies is merely one single limited way to experience, while a dog's perception is another limited way while a bug's is another and a tree/plant's experience is yet another. The Vedanta tradition which matches up quite well with what NDErs indicate, also says, that Source/Brahman is the 'ultimate reality' while physicality is 'unreal', because ultimately it's Brahman/Source in disguise. Yet, unreal does not mean non-existent which is essentially what the OP is arguing for, although through a very limited scope of reality, if you ask me.

Ananda's point above is very crucial here as well because what it all means is that, just because something is outside of our instruments of knowledge (our sensory), clearly does not mean it is non-existent meaning the minute you turn your back on an object, the object doesn't disappear because that idea fails to account for all of the other forms that are also experiencing perhaps this very same object. Nor does it mean that the object is outside of Consciousness. Anything that can possibly be experienced by Consciousness is said to exist on some level. Therefore, going alone by direct experience of the human sensory is incredibly limited and incredibly misleading because of the limitations of the body/mind/sensory.